Reviewed by: The Forms of Michael Field by LeeAnne M. Richardson Carolyn Dever (bio) The Forms of Michael Field, by LeeAnne M. Richardson; pp. xi + 282. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021, $139.99, $109.00 ebook. In The Forms of Michael Field, LeeAnne M. Richardson situates Michael Field—the composite identity of late-Victorian poets and lovers Katharine Bradley and Edith Cooper—at the juncture of new theories of the lyric and of literary form. In their published poetry and verse drama, Michael Field are formally innovative and experimental, as Richardson and previous critics have argued. In this splendid book, Richardson takes this contention in important new directions by centering the poets' authorial signature, "Michael Field," as a formal challenge in its own right, both reflecting and overdetermining their formal experimentations: "scholarship has not fully accounted for the inextricably linked nature of their corporate identity and their literary forms" (2). The poets deploy "Michael Field" as a challenge to ideas of authorship and the lyric "I," and as a manifestation of their larger poetic project on par with their remaking of familiar lyric forms including sonnets, songs, and masques. As Richardson writes, Michael Field's "formal innovations originate in their engagement with and modifications, reinterpretations, and adaptations of their larger social world. For these reasons, a study of Michael Field is necessarily a study of a wide array of literary and social forms at the turn of the twentieth century" (4). For critics, the "Michael Field" proposition requires an unusual flexibility, precisely because Michael Field admit no neat pretense of separation between the literary and the social, notwithstanding the poets' continuous engagement with Aestheticist tenets. Michael Field thus engender (pun intended) a formal challenge to critical praxis as well. For to study Michael Field, Richardson contends, is to study the institutions of authorship [End Page 468] and literature as linked, formal phenomena, the poets rewriting the profile of authorship in the world as they reshape the lyric modes at the heart of their project. Richardson's organization reflects this interdependency, opening with an important consideration of "the significance of the Michael Field persona as a mode of selffashioning and a means of negotiating alternatives to traditional gender norms" and "relat[ing] Michael Field's self-authoring to their authorship, demonstrating how their conscious negotiations of self and form provides them personal and literary authority." Subsequent chapters address how Michael Field manage the commingling of personal and literary authority through negotiations of form across lyric modes. Richardson focuses on two dramatic verse forms, verse tragedy and masque, and on three lyric forms: the song, sonnet, and devotional poem. The chapters proceed chronologically as a means of examining Michael Field's "evolving experiments in adapting traditional forms to contemporary concerns." "Each poetic genre they appropriate," Richardson argues, "explores another way to represent poetic voice and identity, both of which provide ways for Bradley and Cooper to express their aesthetic, engage with modernity, and intervene in the world" (20). Richardson's taxonomy here follows Ana Parejo Vadillo's work in considering Michael Field's verse dramas—of which they published dozens—alongside Michael Field's more canonical lyric work. I appreciate this intervention on many levels, including the elevation by both Richardson and Vadillo of verse drama as a significant, underappreciated literary form in the period, as a majority of Michael Field's published work, and as the heart of Michael Field's own conception of their poetic project. "With their verse dramas, sonnets, and neo-renaissance songs," Richardson writes, "Michael Field is participating in a culture-wide appropriation of old forms for new uses" (17). Richardson situates Michael Field's early, acclaimed tragedy Callirrhoë (1884), the first work they published under what would then become their permanent nom du plume, as their aesthetic manifesto, "one that establishes the themes, forms, concerns, and beliefs that inform the rest of their writing lives together," specifically through the embrace of Dionysian inspiration (60). She further argues that, in composing Callirrhoë as a hybrid of forms—closet drama, verse tragedy, and lyric poems—Michael Field offer "lyric irruptions into the blank verse form" that allow them "to explore subjectivity, divinity, and imagination against a background of...